Land based He115 MPA

We've had a number of threads on various ways the Germans could have had a stronger force of Maritime Patrol Aircraft to support the U boote offensive. Woudn't Heinkel developing a land based aircraft from its He115 seaplane be a easier way to get a LR MPA working in a suitable time frame? In time, more powerful engines could have maximized the speed benefits of removing the floats. It's a starting base with 2000 miles range and lots of growth potencial.
 

Deleted member 1487

We've had a number of threads on various ways the Germans could have had a stronger force of Maritime Patrol Aircraft to support the U boote offensive. Woudn't Heinkel developing a land based aircraft from its He115 seaplane be a easier way to get a LR MPA working in a suitable time frame? In time, more powerful engines could have maximized the speed benefits of removing the floats. It's a starting base with 2000 miles range and lots of growth potencial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_115#Specifications_.28He_115_B-1.29
Performance

Maximum speed: 327 km/h (203 mph)
Combat radius: 2,100 km (1,305 mi)
Service ceiling: 5,200 m (17,100 ft)
Wing loading: 103.8 kg/m² (21.3 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 139 W/kg (0.084 hp/lb)
I'm unclear as to whether that was the range or the one way range; I think it is the latter.

In that case the lack of the drag produced by the floats would be cancelled out by enlarging the design for retractable landing gear. It certainly has potential as a long range bomber, torpedo or otherwise for attacking convoys once they've been spotted. The problem is the range is still too low to allow for linger capabilities. They have the range to get to the critical areas and back, but not stay there and patrol.
The BV138 and DO26 were much better in that regard. They had quadruple the range of the He115 for patrolling. Perhaps then we have the He115 as a strike aircraft and the other two as patrol aircraft, but still it makes more sense to have a single model that can fill both roles.

A structurally strengthened FW200 would fill both of those roles, but then it is compromised as a design, because the extra weight then reduces its range...
There is not really a simple answer other than to have a strategic bomber ready in 1940 that has the range, the fuel capacity, and the structural strength to handle a weapons payload and hard maneuvers. The He115 is too small for all of those requirements.
 
How about the projected Focke Wulf Transoceanic TO project. It's military variant was considered as a FW200 replacement in Feb 40. It was meant for the DB606, wich means reliability would be problematic, but estimates for the bomber version were of a near 5000miles ferry range with 4t of ordenance.

Or we can go smaller with the Me261 VLR recce aircraft. Again, we bump into the DB606.
Is there an open chat thread on German MPA? It would seem reasonable to consolidate all this threads.
 

Deleted member 1487

How about the projected Focke Wulf Transoceanic TO project. It's military variant was considered as a FW200 replacement in Feb 40. It was meant for the DB606, wich means reliability would be problematic, but estimates for the bomber version were of a near 5000miles ferry range with 4t of ordenance.

Or we can go smaller with the Me261 VLR recce aircraft. Again, we bump into the DB606.
Is there an open chat thread on German MPA? It would seem reasonable to consolidate all this threads.

Ferry range means no ordnance, just overloaded fuel. It might have had a payload of 4tons, but what was the combat range with that? Ferry range is not with combat payload.
What were the years of these aircraft?

There was a thread about MPA at one point, but I cannot find it now. We should have a 'frequent topics' sticky.
 
Ferry range means no ordnance, just overloaded fuel. It might have had a payload of 4tons, but what was the combat range with that? Ferry range is not with combat payload.
What were the years of these aircraft?

There was a thread about MPA at one point, but I cannot find it now. We should have a 'frequent topics' sticky.

Hard to say, since it was a paper aircraft. In 1938 Lufthansa issued a requirement for a passenger aircraft that could fly direct from Frankfurt to the USA. FW came up with a proposal in 1940, and, since the times had changed, also suggested a military variant. My LW secret projects book gives the following data with four DB606. Passenger aircraft 700km/h and a 4800 miles range. Project B bomber variant able to carry a 4t bomb load over a 4950 miles distance. I would estimate they meant a combat range in the 2400 miles zone from that data. This puts it in the "better than a B29" class, so I would expect a bit of FW optimism. Than again it had more powerfull engines inside the wings and less defensive armement.
 

Deleted member 1487

range issues can be hand waved away with the introduction of aerial refueling

From what I can tell, the Germans were very much wary of it, though they successfully were able to develop the technique in 1944 for the Amerika Bomber project.


nothing wrong with the Seeadler, AFAIK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_290

except it took a while to enter service - and was too little, too late

Yeah, that's too late for 1940 service before the British got their act together.
 
From what I can tell, the Germans were very much wary of it, though they successfully were able to develop the technique in 1944 for the Amerika Bomber project.




Yeah, that's too late for 1940 service before the British got their act together.

Aerial refuelling in the Atlantic is wonderful if you have the Azores. If the refuelling aircraft have to take off from France, it's a lot less useful, since it would require very big aircraft to carry a useful load to the desirable refuelling points.
 

NothingNow

Banned
Aerial refuelling in the Atlantic is wonderful if you have the Azores. If the refuelling aircraft have to take off from France, it's a lot less useful, since it would require very big aircraft to carry a useful load to the desirable refuelling points.

An Me261 tanker maybe? But if you did that you'd probably use one version for MPA an the other as a dedicated buddy tanker.

But to be something effective and long-ranged with 30-40s tech and available in time, you need to start at about the same time as the XB-15, with the intention of eventually building something capable of carting 4+ Fritz-X or Hs 293 internally (to reduce drag) on a patrol at a minimum, and something as big as the B-36 might not be out of the question actually, if you want plenty of fuel and a good amount of bombs/missiles/depth charges. And hey, at the B-36's specs, Airborne refueling just became really practical, since you can cart 30,000+kg of fuel over the MPA version in a tanker (even if it could take anywhere from 30 to 90 minutes to transfer over that much fuel at the pressures a hose and drogue unit can take safely.)

But something a little more capable (say 6,000kg payload, 10,000km range,) than the XB-15 is entirely doable to have in service by 1940, especially if you've got more-efficient engines available, and streamline the nose of the thing, and use some tech IOTL developed for the XF-12, and comparable streamlining to further improve those metrics (and could thus legitimately hide it's design as being a pure research project and later a High-speed long-range Airliner.)
 

Deleted member 1487

An Me261 tanker maybe? But if you did that you'd probably use one version for MPA an the other as a dedicated buddy tanker.

But to be something effective and long-ranged with 30-40s tech and available in time, you need to start at about the same time as the XB-15, with the intention of eventually building something capable of carting 4+ Fritz-X or Hs 293 internally (to reduce drag) on a patrol at a minimum, and something as big as the B-36 might not be out of the question actually, if you want plenty of fuel and a good amount of bombs/missiles/depth charges. And hey, at the B-36's specs, Airborne refueling just became really practical, since you can cart 30,000+kg of fuel over the MPA version in a tanker (even if it could take anywhere from 30 to 90 minutes to transfer over that much fuel at the pressures a hose and drogue unit can take safely.)

But something a little more capable (say 6,000kg payload, 10,000km range,) than the XB-15 is entirely doable to have in service by 1940, especially if you've got more-efficient engines available, and streamline the nose of the thing, and use some tech IOTL developed for the XF-12, and comparable streamlining to further improve those metrics (and could thus legitimately hide it's design as being a pure research project and later a High-speed long-range Airliner.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_261
It didn't enter testing until December 1940, which means it won't be ready until December 1942 at the earliest and then about 6 months for a unit to become operational.

A Do219 would really be the only option. Of course this is a fantasy aircraft, so we can assume plenty about what it would be, so its not exactly fair, but frankly I think Dornier should have been in on the Bomber A competition. It seems just about everyone was, including Junkers, but not Dornier. Obviously Heinkel was favored...but there was still a good shot for Dornier to compete based on learning what NOT to do in a strategic bomber design.

The Heinkel 177 was the only OTL aircraft that could have been ready in 1940 if everything went smoothly...
 
Why the Do19 over the Ju89?

The LW was closer to choosing the Do19 as a bomber, but wouldn't the Ju89 that competed with it be a better base for a LR MPA?
 

Deleted member 1487

The LW was closer to choosing the Do19 as a bomber, but wouldn't the Ju89 that competed with it be a better base for a LR MPA?

It was much heavier and had an even bigger wing than the Do19. The only reason it had better range than the Do19, was that the Do19 was prejudiced against by getting much weaker engines. The Ju89 had the DB600A, which had about 1000hp at altitude, 400hp more than the 332 Fafnir of the Do19, which only gave 600hp at altitude.

The Do19 was a better platform for the glide bombs later on, as with some adaptations of the fuselage, it could have carried much more fuel, and had sturdy wings. Its lighter weight and less drag gave it a much better chance to have the endurance to linger in the Atlantic, than the Ju89, which was nearly 6 tons heavier than the Do19. Also the Do19 required far less material to manufacture and could be manufactured quicker and cheaper than the Ju89.

I'm thinking about a Do219 would be a better bet, as it could embody exactly what was needed for a LR MPA and LR strategic bomber. Someone else on another forum and suggested that a push-puller engine configuration like the Do26:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_26
That would reduce drag tremendously and allow for a much shorter wing. Four Jumo 211A's in a push-puller configuration would provide enough power and less drag to give an even better performance than the extra large propellors of the He177.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, but late more powerful engines would allowed the Ju89 to use its bigger volume to carry a more useful load. A bigger aircraft with a bigger wing means you can add power to compensate weight gain without compromising the power loading so much. And the Ju89 doesn't seem, by "looks right flies right" standards anyway, to need so much aerodynamic redesign as the boxy Do19.
 

Deleted member 1487

Yes, but late more powerful engines would allowed the Ju89 to use its bigger volume to carry a more useful load. A bigger aircraft with a bigger wing means you can add power to compensate weight gain without compromising the power loading so much. And the Ju89 doesn't seem, by "looks right flies right" standards anyway, to need so much aerodynamic redesign as the boxy Do19.

Later generation aircraft could tolerate higher wing loading and tried to reduce wing size because of drag. The enormous wing area, the highest I've encountered so far, would be a 'drag' on its utility. There is a reason the Ju290 dramatically reduced its wing area.
 
I'm finding 184m2 for the Ju89 and 203m2 for the later Ju290A. I think the large wing of the Ju89 would allow it to take off with a very large load once it got really powerful engines. Since the evolution from the Ju89 to the 90 and 290 was pretty smooth sailing, a LW for a dedicate MPA on a Ju89 base could be the shortest way to an effective LR maritime patrol and strike aircraft for the Germans.
Note, the first aircraft Ifound with a bigger wing area was the Tu142, so we're talking big here...The B36 has twice the wing area though.
 

Deleted member 1487

I'm finding 184m2 for the Ju89 and 203m2 for the later Ju290A. I think the large wing of the Ju89 would allow it to take off with a very large load once it got really powerful engines. Since the evolution from the Ju89 to the 90 and 290 was pretty smooth sailing, a LW for a dedicate MPA on a Ju89 base could be the shortest way to an effective LR maritime patrol and strike aircraft for the Germans.
Note, the first aircraft Ifound with a bigger wing area was the Tu142, so we're talking big here...The B36 has twice the wing area though.

Of course we don't know what the improvement to the Do19 would be with better engines. It would have far better fuel economy and with a modified fuselage for extra bombs and fuel it would outperform the Ju89 IMHO.
 
Top